Do Hubs have a future? - a view from the Past 1
A condensed History of Hubs Europe: Hubs were initially Home Bases of the National Carrier US: Nationwide Domestic Networks emerged after Deregulation European Liberalisation finally paved the way for global alliances 2
Market Share of Alliances at European Hubs in Juli 2001 Seats of other Alliances at departing flights Seats of dominating Alliance at departing flights 3
Traffic Development at European Hubs 1990 & 1996-2000 Airport Terminal Passengers (millions) Transfer Passengers % share of Alliances (Hub carriers) (arrival + departure) (millions) of Terminal Passengers 1990 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1990 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1990 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 FRA 28,7 38,0 39,6 42,1 45,9 49,4 12,9 18,1 18,7 19,8 22,5 24,7 53 61 64 65 65 68 MUC 11,2 15,4 17,6 19,1 21,1 22,9 0,8 3,5 4,4 5,0 5,7 6,2 43 49 50 53 56 57 VIE 5,5 9,0 9,6 10,5 11,1 11,8 0,8 1,8 2,1 2,8 3,1 3,4 55 57 60 63 65 68 CPH 12,0 16,0 16,6 16,5 17,5 18,8 4,0 6,4 7,6 7,7 7,8 8,2 * (only 64 65 65 64 * 64 * SAS) 60 60 61 59 59 AMS 16,2 27,3 31,0 34,0 36,4 39,3 4,4 11,0 13,1 14,3 15,5 16,5 51 62 61 60 63 61 ZRH 12,3 15,8 17,9 18,9 20,7 22,5 3,6 5,1 6,7 7,5 8,9 10,1 58 60 64 68 69 69 BRU 8,5 13,4 15,8 18,5 20,0 21,6 0,4 * 2,6 4,0 5,4 6,2 6,8 35 * 42 44 54 56 57 LHR 42,6 55,7 57,8 60,3 62,0 64,3 11,9 18,9 19,1 19,5 19,5 18,9-55 53 53 52 51 LGW 21,0 24,1 26,8 29,0 30,4 32,0 1,7 3,6 5,2 5,7 7,2 7,0-34 38 41 42 42 CDG 22,1 31,4 35,1 38,5 43,5 48,1 2,2 11,3 13,2 14,6 14,8 16,2 53 57 58 57 59 58 ORY 24,2 27,3 25,0 24,9 25,3 25,4 1,0 * 3,0 * 4,0 5,0 3,3 3,4 70 53 50 49 50 51 4
Share of Transfer Passengers at European Hubs in 2000 FRA 50% MUC 27% ZHR 45% CPH 44% AMS 42% CDG 34% BRU 31% VIE 29% LHR 29% LGW 22% ORY 13% 5
Between 1990 and 2000 the number of connecting passengers on these 11 European hubs has increased +177% (10,7% p.a.) while the number of local passengers has only risen +46% (3,9% p.a.). Total passenger grew +74% (5,7% p.a.). 6
30 25 Passenger [in m] Transfer Passenger at European Hubs 1990 and 1996-2000 20 15 10 5 0 1990 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 FRA LHR AMS CDG ZRH CPH LGW BRU MUC ORY VIE +92% +59% +275% +636% +180% +105% +311% +1600% +675% +240% +325% 7
Split of Transfer Passengers Share of Transfer Passengers in 2000 at the German Hubs FRA & MUC Tranfer Pax (Mio) 35 30 0,5 Mio national - national 25 20 6,5 Mio 5,8 Mio national - international 15 10 18,1 Mio international - national 5 0 international - international 8
What makes a Hub attractive? Direct Flights (Number/ Timing) Convenience / Transfer Convenience Clear Lay Out / Easy Orientation Minimum Connecting Time / Short Distances Low Rate of lost or damaged Baggage Range of Services / Facilities (Shopping, Gastronomy, Banks, Trolleys, Lounges and other Recreation Areas, Lavatories etc.) Cleanliness and Atmosphere Friendliness of Staff 9
The boosted Potential of integrated Hubs - Three Flights linking ATL and CDG are optimal timed to capture Traffic Flow Annual industry O&D traffic: 114 pax per day each way ATL Inbound Connections ATL Departure CDG CDG Arrival Outbound Connections 68 16:05 6:30 41 80 17:55 8:20 52 68 21:35 11:50 43 Source: Delta Notes: Max Connect Time 3hrs; Min Connect Time 50 min ATL, 45 min CDG; Max circuity of 20% 10
The boosted Potential of integrated Hubs - the DL & AF example shows a sixfold increase through transatlantic market combinations 16000 14000 Source: Delta 15132 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2220 2375 DL alone via ATL AF alone via CDG AF+ DL combined via ATL & 11
In- and Outbound Capacity (in Seats) of STAR in Frankfurt in 10 min. Intervals [example date: Monday in May 2003] North-/South India America South- and Far East Near East Africa Europe / Germany Inbound Outbound North- / South America North America Near East Europe / Germany Europe / Germany Europe / Germany North America Near East India Africa Japan North America Near East India & Africa Europe / Germany Europe / Germany Europe / Germany China Near East Japan China Japan Hong Kong Europe / Germany Far East South America Africa 12
Destination Region of Scheduled Pax from Germany Geograhical Direction of the Flight Pax Share acc. to Flight Dir. Most suitable Foreign European Hub(s) N-Europe North 7% CPH N-Europe / Far East East 10% CPH S-E-Europe South-East 9,5% VIE W-Europe / N-America West 50% AMS / LON (only NA) S-W-Europe / C-S America South-West 8,5% PAR S-Europe / Africa / Near East (Far E.) South 15% ZRH 13
Situation prior to the ECJ Decision: Star Alliance and Sky Team well positioned Qualiflier left the Market Wings is hardly developing Oneworld still has no Antitrust Immunity for BA and AA If Oneworld would have received the Antitrust Immunity the Market would be different: e.g. STR-FRA-CHI-RNO Routing shortened to STR-LON-RNO Reaction of Competitors would have triggered of a cascade effect which would have led to many new direct transatlantic links 14
Interconnections on LON US Flights European Carriers US-Carriers not connecting 56% 41% connecting in US 8% 43% connecting in LON 36% 16% Source: CAA UK 15
Situation after to the ECJ Decision:... 16
Types of Co-operation in the Future? Route codeshare Network codeshare Marketing Co-operation Shared Support Services Joint Operations Franchaising Equity Participation Full ownership / Ownership control Deeper Alliances Source: CAA UK 17
Apply -18.26607 56.04791 31999.99 50.0319 8.5778 FRA 000 STAR 5 nmlkjnmlkjnmlkj3200 German Aviation Research Society Future Aspects Hubs need for HSR Connections will drastically increase Low Cost will affect / partly destroy the traditional European Feeder Networks Introduction of A380 will offers new potential for reducing costs per Seat Mile by bundling traffic flows 18
Apply -18.26607 56.04791 31999.99 50.0319 8.5778 FRA 000 STAR 5 nmlkjnmlkjnmlkj3200 German Aviation Research Society So Do Hubs have a Future? 19
Apply -18.26607 56.04791 31999.99 50.0319 8.5778 FRA 000 STAR 5 nmlkjnmlkjinmlkj3200 German Aviation Research Society but... Yes! but... but... but... but... 20